I attended an Intellect run meeting, on behalf of BIS, this week to discuss the 2MBit/s Universal Service Commitment or USC. At least I had thought that was what the meeting was for - actually it was a "Concept Viability Workshop" to discuss the options to deliver on the USC in certain fabricated scenarios where it was perceived by the organisers that service may not currently be available.
The key issue we faced, however, was that the organisers of the meeting were unwilling to define the USC for us. Indeed we were openly told that the definition of the USC would not be considered. Therefore we were left to discuss how to deliver something we couldn't define which took less time than they had expected!
We did push back quite a bit on this and I heard two statements about the USC that could combine to form a definition:
1. It is a line that is capable of delivering up to...
2. It is asymmetric
I have since received an email thanking me for my attendance and confirming that the organisers did indeed note that we need to have clarity on that definition. I have written a response to that email that I wish to share (all names removed) and get your comment on as I believe we are starting on the path to failure when we can see the path to success right next to us and this makes no sense to me at all.
EMAIL:
Dear xxx,
I would like to raise one point from your email below. The consensus was that a definition of a USC is required not (necessarily) what a 2MBit/s USC is. I make the distinction because I wrote down two particular things that member of BIS had to say about the definition:
1. It is a line capable of up to...
2. It is asymmetric
Now there are a variety of other factors that could make up your definition but I believe you must first consider what the USC is trying to achieve. If all you require is to have some form of broadband service available to 100% of the country then you have your definition from the above. However, if your mandate is to consider a USC that can both deliver on today's broadband requirements and meet those of the next generations then, i.e. more aspirational, then you must reconsider the above statements.
As we heard from our colleagues in the satellite industry at the meeting, they can deliver a service to 100% of the country that will meet the USC based on the above (loose) definition. However that is not, in my view, a broadband service that can be anything but stop gap. Indeed in my breakout session that very fact was admitted to by a member of the satellite industry: "It will do until something better comes along..."
Technology is already very capable of delivering something better and people are already wanting to consume far more than such a connection would offer. Therefore I would urge you and your colleagues to reconsider your position on the USC and to make it far more aspirational than it appears it is going to be.
I have two initial suggestions that would mean you could still progress with the 2MBit/s headline figure that everyone is so familiar with:
1. It is a line that will deliver a minimum of 2MBit/s at peak hours
2. The 2MBit/s rate is the upstream rate (therefore if it is an asymmetric connection the downstream rate will be far in excess of this)
In truth I and my colleagues who look to deliver true next generation broadband to Britain's communities would like to see a USC (or perhaps a USA - aspiration) of 100MBit/s symmetric but I am not going to push you on that!
Good luck with your report.
Best Regards,
xxx
Friday, 19 February 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
My definition of a USC is 'whatever the customer needs and is prepared to pay for'. I had a satellite for 3 years until we built a community wifi network in 2005. Now I need more, and will pay for more, but you can't upgrade wireless as easily as you can upgrade fibre. The beauty of doing the job properly with fibre will mean further upgrades just happen with no added costs. Fibre is cheaper than copper. It can deliver 2meg symmetrical, or, just like a tap it can deliver gigs.
ReplyDeleteWe don't ration our water or electric, so why do we think we need to ration our comms?
Do the people at innovate or BIS actually understand the physics? Fibre is a no brainer. It just works. Are any of them coming to the colloquium?
What I find interesting like you mentioned above is the chats out of the meetings, all these folk we talk to admit that fibre is the way to bring prosperity and innovation to digitalbritain but they don't seem to want to do anything to move the agenda forward. This attitude of 'satellite will do' is no good either, it is an expensive solution that not many rural people can afford. If I was a millionaire I could have a BT fibre fat pipe, but the USC has to be affordable. It has to be ubiquitous and it has to be futureproof.Providing a copper 2 meg USC is probably more expensive than providing a fibre solution. If BT are to remove all the DACS they will have to run copper, so why not just do the job right and run fibre?
To go back to the original point.
A USC of 2meg (or whatever) has to be delivered using futureproof hardware, not stopgap solutions that provide a tempory fix. That is the best value for money.
The only reason for our community network using wifi is that it is the best we can do, but as soon as we can do better we will. We have already laid and lit our first fibre run joining 3 properties to our network. But we are a tiny community. The government and telcos 'should' be able to do better.
Actually we do "ration" our electricity to an extent - it is perfectly feasible to run too many devices in your home and exceed the power input. I've done it.
ReplyDeleteIt's also not about physics, it's about economics. Intellect probably understand both but are only bound by one. The question is whether they are short-term economics or long-term. If we can work to the long-term, as we are trying to do, then fibre makes sense.
My point about satellite is that the USC (with the vague definition we have) can be delivered to 100% of the UK today which means either the USC is worthless or we can pat ourselves on our collective backs and congratulate ourselves on a job well done. Guess which I believe to be the case...
Remember, there are two aims: 2 Mbps for everyone NOW (the USC), and "superfast broadband" for everyone by 2017. Don't mix them up.
ReplyDeleteYou need to stick with the task in hand - working out how to deliver the USC.
The USC has been set down in the Digital Britain report, agreed, and has funding - asking for a higher rate at this time is pointless. Debating the USC target will distract you from important questions that need answering if any kind of USC is to become a reality.
(End rant).
In the case of telephone, universal service means anyone can request a telephone line where ever they live, and it won't cost the earth. Broadband USC should have a similar definition: anyone can request a broadband service at a reasonable cost, regardless of where they live, and expect a minimum level of service. Today that minimum level of service is 2 Mbps.
I'm a bit shocked that the fundamental questions about implementing the USC remain unanswered so long after it was agreed. It seems to me that nobody can do anything until it is agreed what 2 Mbps actually means in terms of performance.
Here are some key questions:
what minimum performance is a person entitled to?
how will performance be measured?
how will it be enforced?
what happens if this performance is not achieved?
Perhaps we can learn from our European neighbours on this one. Finland, Spain, Switzerland and others already have, or are about to have universal service obligations. What solutions have they come up with?
I did read that in Finland, for example, they were suggesting that a downstream rate of 1Mbps (their target) should be achievable 70% of the time.
Of course, it would be good if some of the technical solutions to the USC were good for more than a few years. The government doesn't want to have to cough up more money in just a few years time when (hopefully) the minimum service level is raised.
As I understand it, satellite is expensive. I think they use satellite to deliver a broadband service to 100% of the population in Northern Ireland, and it's heavily subsidised. It's not a case of spend your money to install it once, instead the subsidy needs to be available for as long as the service.
In the Digital Britain report it said that FTTC was expected to be one of the solutions for delivering the USC. It may not be true FTTH, but it's a step in the right direction - more fibre in the ground.
Hmm, FttC is certainly a step, whether in the right direction rather depends on the observer's viewpoint...
ReplyDeleteWhat I see as more important than the technology involved with improving the patchy and poor state of broadband Britain is to recognise a key fact:
Namely that the shift in First Mile access technology (from copper to Fi:Wi) gives us, the customer, a fleeting chance;
A window of opportunity to take control of our collective means of tele-communication and rebalance the terms of trade in the community interest - putting people first for a change
The problem with FttC is that it soothes the itch to break free from incumbency, takes away the acute pain caused by having inadequate connectivity.... for a while
Whereas, for permanent change to take place, there needs to be a critical mass of neighbours, of members of the local community ready to step up and support Community Interest ownership of FttH together.
The danger of accepting incremental change is that the opportunity is lost for transforming the UK through alternative ownership and governance structures that in turn create a true world-class 4th Utility available to all, urban and rural alike.